A Silver Lining in Iranian Arms Deal : Scandal May Have Prodded Others to Cut Their Lethal Trade

Much has been said and written about the great damage done to American prestige and credibility by the Reagan Administration’s secret, ill-conceived transfer of weapons to Iran at the same time that it was conducting a global effort to persuade other nations to cut off such sales.

The criticism is justified. However, Chairman Les Aspin (D-Wis.) of the House Armed Services Committee makes an interesting case that the arms deal--which Aspin prefers to call “Iranamuck”--actually did more to inhibit the flow of arms to Iran than any amount of haranguing by Washington could have accomplished if the U.S. arms transfers had never occurred.

The damage to the Iranian war effort began well before Iran’s sowing of mines in the Persian Gulf provoked an international outcry. It will continue even if, as seems likely, the U.N. Security Council fails to vote an embargo on weapons sales to Iran.

The first thing to remember is that original sin in this case did not lie with the Reagan Administration--in fact, something like 40 countries have been involved in arms sales to Iran.

Aspin recalls that “the common wisdom after exposure of the Reagan Administration’s arms deal with Iran was that . . . no one would listen anymore to a government that had been revealed doing the reverse of what it appealed to others to do.” Common wisdom, however, failed to reckon with the European news media, which followed the U.S. revelations with a persistent hunt for similar indiscretions in Europe.

“In almost every European country,” said the Wisconsin Democrat, “the media has uncovered a version of Iranamuck. From Sweden to Spain, from Austria to the Netherlands, investigative reporters have unearthed evidence of sales to Iran of military equipment originating in their countries.

“The result,” Aspin said, “is that European governments . . . have been forced to police their military exports in a way that they never did when the sole pressure came from the U.S. ambassador.”

The American sale of arms to the government of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, deplorable as it was, amounted to a relatively small share of the $6 billion or more in weapons that have flowed into Iran since 1981.

The biggest suppliers have been China--which is said to have sold Iran $1.6 billion worth of tanks, artillery, SAM-7 antiaircraft missiles and Silkworm anti-ship missiles--and North Korea--which has supplied an estimated $250 million worth of small arms, munitions and mines.

Brazil, Argentina and Israel have been involved. South Africa is believed to be building spares for Iran’s U.S.-built Phantom jet fighters. Much of the powder used in the mines sown by Iran is said to have come from France. Until a few days ago the British allowed Iran to operate a large arms-purchasing office in London.

Anybody who thinks that the Reagan Administration had a monopoly on hypocrisy should look at the case of Sweden.

The Swedes, like the Swiss, combine a loudly proclaimed neutralism with a firm belief in the necessity of maintaining strong defense forces. In the Swedish view, neutralism requires an independent arms industry. In order to manufacture arms on an economically feasible scale, however, Sweden’s $1-billion-a-year defense industry exports such deadly items as tanks, submarines, fighter planes, guns and missiles.

Swedish law supposedly outlaws arms sales to countries that are engaged in “armed conflict with another state,” as well as to nations that are in danger of becoming involved in war, are engaged in armed internal disturbances or suppress human rights.

In the wake of the Iran arms deal, however, it turned out that officials had been turning a blind eye to transactions that hardly squared with Sweden’s righteous self-image.

The fast and dangerous Iranian patrol boats that are in the hands of Khomeini’s Revolutionary Guards came from Sweden. Bofors, part of the industrial empire founded by Albert Nobel, father of the Nobel Peace Prize, is accused of using intermediaries to ship artillery, laser-guided missiles and other weapons to Iran and other supposedly blacklisted countries.

Embarrassed European governments have begun to tighten the screws.

Sweden’s ruling Social Democrats have voted to adopt stricter controls on arms sales, and some Swedish arms merchants may face prosecution.

Aspin, who has access to intelligence information, says that Europe’s share of Iran’s foreign arms purchases has already fallen from 40% in 1985 and 1986 to 15% this year.

Meanwhile, according to Aspin, Arab states--with some backing from other Third World countries--have called on Beijing to curtail its lucrative arms business with Iran.

So far it isn’t working. China and North Korea, moving to fill the gap created by tighter European restrictions, have increased their share of Iranian arms purchases from 40% to 65%. To a lesser extent, the Soviet Bloc has also stepped up its weapons sales to Iran. But the hot light of global publicity may yet have an effect on these suppliers, too.

The United States is pressing for a U.N. arms embargo. So far, though, Britain is the only other member of the Security Council to support the proposal. China, France and the Soviet Union all have veto power over any embargo voted by the Security Council--and all are unwilling to support an embargo at this time.

As the president of Iran told the U.N. General Assembly last week, Iran manufactures much of the arms that it needs, and “there are many sellers” on the international black market.

However, Iran’s lack of ability to defend against Iraqi air strikes reflects the difficulty that it has encountered in keeping its Phantom jets in the air; obviously Khomeini isn’t getting everything that he wants. And arms bought on the black market through greedy middlemen cost a lot more than if they could be purchased through normal channels.

The bottom line is that restrictions on arms shipments can’t be counted on to bring Iran to the peace table. But the price of intransigence is going up--thanks in part, ironically, to the pressures generated by the disclosure of the disgraceful U.S. sale of weapons to Iran.